tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post7508719914503418763..comments2024-03-18T21:06:42.546-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Jerry-built atheismEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger454125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26353433063071878732018-09-13T00:06:04.952-07:002018-09-13T00:06:04.952-07:00Long time, no argue, dguller. I think your justifi...Long time, no argue, dguller. I think your justification for uniqueness is a little off, which is why you're having trouble getting across the goal line.<br /><br />Since the Pure Act is the ground of all being, there is no perfection that it cannot possess. So if there were two Pure Act beings, one would have to possess a perfection the other does not have, but since Pure Act cannot lack any perfection, there cannot be more than one.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35345784476533759182014-02-17T21:35:55.940-08:002014-02-17T21:35:55.940-08:00ugh, sorry, that last comment should have read
&...ugh, sorry, that last comment should have read <br /><br />"... you DO believe such beliefs about ladders are silly..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10114831515104921102014-02-17T19:05:19.136-08:002014-02-17T19:05:19.136-08:00Step2,
but why can't he claim it? Certainly ...Step2, <br /><br />but why can't he claim it? Certainly his belief about ladders can be tested. He can document all of his trips to the office, some of them where he walks under ladders and some where he does not, and he can see if there is a correlation between his walking under ladders and 'bad luck' in the lab.<br /><br />I'm assuming that YOU don't believe such beliefs about ladders are silly because of what YOU have experienced in the world. If you had to appeal to more than inferences against the probability of such spooky causal relationships that would involve some rather Medieval thinking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22577591395147367082014-02-17T17:15:58.521-08:002014-02-17T17:15:58.521-08:00@Matt Sheean,
It depends on whether or not the che...@Matt Sheean,<br />It depends on whether or not the chemist puts his superstition into his requirements for performing the experiment or in his conclusion about the experiment. I tried to distinguish between what he subjectively believes and what he claims is objectively causally effective. If the chemist does claim it is objectively effective then he has to show how it is. What are the measurements that support his claim?<br /><br />@George LeSauvage<br />The ringing bells were supposed to have a causal effect by driving away evil spirits who, typically under the direction of witches, were responsible for the thunderstorms. That the bells were also used as a prayer/petition doesn't diminish that aspect, the book excerpt details how this direct causal effect was eventually eliminated (except among Platonists apparently) despite popular resistance.Step2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63401900060679984552014-02-17T16:40:31.853-08:002014-02-17T16:40:31.853-08:00I'm not sure that is the best total descriptio...I'm not sure that is the best total description of the longaevi, even in Lewis's work. I think Lewis does think they represent a not insignificant aspect of the cosmos.<br /><br />I'm a Platonist, so I strongly stress the importance of one's imaginative (in the higher sense) and intellectual attunement to reality, especially the fact that creation reflects God and he can be viewed through it. The psychic and the subtle, which account for much of the paranormal - are not of prime importance in this attunement, but the corporeal still descends and is contained within the sublte and it is better to be attuned to it to some degree. In a more mundane sense this helps with reenchanting reality against the oppressive imagination of materialism.<br /><br />I agree with you about caution - not calling the devil. The paranormal can be dangerous. I think one of the problems with ignoring it is that this danger - for instance subtle or psychic residues that may cling to certain spots or objects or rituals - are ignored as well.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62267974900480931412014-02-17T10:09:35.507-08:002014-02-17T10:09:35.507-08:00Jeremy Taylor:
IIRC, the longaevi are more a lit...Jeremy Taylor: <br /><br />IIRC, the longaevi are more a literary than a philosophical belief. Something of a truancy is how he describes them. (Don't know where my copy of Discarded Image is, though.)<br /><br />But my "position" is really that I don't much care about this side. I confess I don't like it - never have. Stories which are deeply occult have always been distasteful to me. (I mean Lovecraft, not Rowling.) That is just a gut reaction, though. If it interests you, fine. Just don't call the devil, he may answer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89564324637103349642014-02-17T10:04:14.517-08:002014-02-17T10:04:14.517-08:00Step2, you are failing to distinguish between peti...Step2, you are failing to distinguish between petitions to God and causal actions. Only the latter would be involved in scientific enquiry, as only those entail a belief that certain actions - in themselves - bring about effects through supernatural means. The magician's spell causes the effect (perhaps through a spirit, perhaps directly). Prayer just requests help from God; a request which may or may not be granted, and the granting may or may not be supernatural.<br /><br />Thus the examples you cite are not relevant, as they don't claim to have the power to cause the help to occur. That puts them outside the question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41188021394130730192014-02-17T00:05:53.798-08:002014-02-17T00:05:53.798-08:00Matt,
To get sense out of Step2, or Don, would be...Matt,<br /><br />To get sense out of Step2, or Don, would be a bona fide miracle.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10673433989370235952014-02-16T22:40:59.124-08:002014-02-16T22:40:59.124-08:00Step2,
Would you say that a (hypothetical) chemi...Step2, <br /><br />Would you say that a (hypothetical) chemist who scrupulously avoids walking under ladders on the way to work in the lab would (because he believes that he just might bring bad luck upon his research by walking under ladders), as a result, not be doing chemistry once he was in the lab? <br /><br />Clearly the act of avoiding the undersides of ladders is not doing chemistry, but nobody here, I wager, is confused about that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88499998624942494712014-02-15T17:18:57.476-08:002014-02-15T17:18:57.476-08:00Your example simply doesn't refer to any relig...<i>Your example simply doesn't refer to any religious rites I am aware of, and seems to misunderstand the nature of those rites.</i><br /><br />There are older "purification" rituals and customs such as <a href="http://planninganalyzingthings.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/corbin-alain-identity-bells-and-the-nineteenth-century-french-village.pdf" rel="nofollow">ringing church bells</a> (skip to page 4 of the pdf) to ward off thunderstorms that aren’t practiced anymore, but the same power is included in the <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01220a.htm" rel="nofollow">Agnus Dei blessings.</a><br /><br /><i>There are priests whose job it is to try to debunk miracles.</i><br /><br />They need to work a lot harder. :)Step2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52183615939035395212014-02-14T21:51:00.914-08:002014-02-14T21:51:00.914-08:00Well, certain types of paranormal events or entiti...Well, certain types of paranormal events or entities are testified to by Scripture or Church tradition. Not just proper miracles, but spirits, possession, demons, magic - in some sense - are attested from these sources. <br /><br />I'm a Platonic, and we have more an acknowledgment of such things than the Aristotelian, but I think the traditional levels of being do make it clear that there is a psychic or subtle realm directly above our corporeal realm. This realm in some sense contains and impinges on the corporeal (our psyches and souls are psychic or subtle themselves, of course), and is responsible for much that we consider paranormal.<br /><br />I don't consider the paranormal an important aspect of my religious thought - indeed, I think it more often than not better to be wary of it (not in the wary of whether it exists sense, but wary of its dangers), as Chesterton advised. I do think God's universe is more mysterious and sacred than the contemporary view allows, and what we are calling the paranormal has a role in that. As C.S Lewis reminded us, even the medieval cosmography had an important place for the Longaevi as an attestment to mysterious elements within the corporeal world (or crossing between it and the subtle world) I am a fan of Charles Fort and the John Michell. In many ways I find their position to be more genuinely open-minded than many of professional sceptics. A lot of sceptics seem simply sceptical of what goes against scientistic naturalism. Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90737600276384343742014-02-14T07:55:50.729-08:002014-02-14T07:55:50.729-08:00@Jeremy Taylor:
"Repudiate" is a bit to...@Jeremy Taylor:<br /><br />"Repudiate" is a bit too strong for my attitude. However, I do come from a position of 100% skepticism about the paranormal, and most of that attitude remains. I don't see any reason a Christian need accept any of it, outside attested miracles. Even miracles, angels, and demons - while I accept that the Church knows more about them than I do - don't occupy much place in my thinking.<br /><br />This is not unknown to Catholicism. There are priests whose job it is to try to debunk miracles. (Even TV picked up on this fact, in The X-Files.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41294355157854937682014-02-13T19:47:27.317-08:002014-02-13T19:47:27.317-08:00GeorgeLeSauvage,
It is only a minor point, but I...GeorgeLeSauvage,<br /><br />It is only a minor point, but I find your comments a little puzzling. I don't see why are you quite so keen to repudiate the paranormal (magic, posession, ghosts, miracles, and so on) entirely. It seems a rather strange for a Classical Theist or traditional Christian to take such a position. Like Chesterton, shouldn't we believe in the paranormal on principle? <br /><br />Not that we have to believe in every kind of class or particular paranormal entity or event, or accept many of the classifications and explanations given for them; but it just seems strange for me to that Classical Theists and Christians would treat all the ubiquitous claims of paranormal events and entities in the same way a naturalist/material would (accept strict miracles, presumably).Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-694347915868895752014-02-13T16:20:19.982-08:002014-02-13T16:20:19.982-08:00@Step2:
"I would say science does have a str...@Step2:<br /><br />"I would say science does have a structural bias against many varieties of theism. In other words a scientist who claims his experiment failed because of an evil spirit, or that it worked because he used a religious ritual or object to bless the lab would not be "doing science" even if he was personally convinced of the truth of that portion of his explanation."<br /><br />1. This is puzzling. I am unclear what "varieties of theism" you have in mind, or what you mean by "theism". I suspect you might be assuming that any belief in the supernatural, in any sense, leads to the above statement. But it doesn't. That's an assumption which (common though it is) is just as invalid as assuming that all materialists are Marxist.<br /><br />There really is a difference between religion and magic, which was clear to people in earlier times. No one thought that, say, praying to even a demigod would cause what they prayed for to happen, e.g., recovery from illness. <br /><br />But those who use voodoo dolls do believe there is a true causal effect. Note that even into the 17th C, many people who were believers in science were also believers in magic. But the more religiously orthodox (and philosophical) a person was, the less likely he was to believe that magic really worked.<br /><br />Your example simply doesn't refer to any religious rites I am aware of, and seems to misunderstand the nature of those rites.<br /><br />2. In fact, the claims about magic - summoning spirits and performing magical rites - were exactly the sort of thing which scientists can and did test. And found them wanting. They didn't work.<br /><br />But if they'd worked? Would it have destroyed science if it had encountered oddities like this? Many don't think so; there are still parapsychologists* out there. Wouldn't scientists have had to come up with some way to fit the unexplainable into their system, if its occurrence were confirmed? (As they do with the behavior of electrons, for instance.)<br /><br />In short, you seem to be addressing a kind of caricature of religions and theology, and not the real things.<br /><br />*Not that I put any credence in these guys. But I cannot claim they are not studying their subject with the scientific method.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39015855728055515632014-02-13T16:05:53.472-08:002014-02-13T16:05:53.472-08:00@donjindra:
I think your questions are missing th...@donjindra:<br /><br />I think your questions are missing the point. Yes, the physical sciences deal with physical phenomena and substances. That's why they are so called.<br /><br />But the point is that, in the process, they rely more, on mental activities and concepts which are, by their nature, not physical. For instance, if I believe in a false hypothesis, and you are (correctly) debating me that it has been falsified, you simply cannot refer to our brains to find out who's right. The laws of physics are not suspended, or malfunctioning, in my head.<br /><br />The only criteria which apply are valid/invalid, true/false, coherent/incoherent, and the like. And no one has come close to showing how these can be material in their nature or their causes.<br /><br />THAT is the problem: the anti-materialist position is not that science is being pursued wrongly, but that it is, in the minds of scientists, misunderstood in its nature (again, not in its practice). They are, in pursuing science, using concepts to which, under materialism, they have not right to use, but which have been snuck back in from classical metaphysics, through the back door. Bedecking themselves in stolen jewels, as it were.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7085288878076270502014-02-13T14:15:04.178-08:002014-02-13T14:15:04.178-08:00but, Step 2, you're describing some pretty pla...but, Step 2, you're describing some pretty plain examples of superstitious behavior. <br /><br />I don't see any conflict in, say, a scientist who believes that something about the nature of God is disclosed as a result of his scientific project (which he believes as a result of his examination of conditions of the possibility of science). He doesn't have to confuse God's causal relationship to the entity he is studying with some spooky proximate cause. <br /><br />Also, as a side note: I'm inclined to think that the whole idea that science in general can be separated from metaphysical concerns is that science is broken up into so many disciplines. Individual disciplines seem kinda like, say, a guy that manufactures engine mounts all day but doesn't know how to change the oil on his car (or what all that pesky oil is for anyways).<br /><br />also, where'd Bob go? <br /><br />Another anecdote related to determinacy occurred to me. My 3 year old daughter calls every sort of condiment 'ketchup'. In order to figure out what she means by that word (because it could be any sort of condiment at all), I have to assume that she is using the term intentionally to refer to a determinate object (like the mayo or the mustard or the relish or what have you). I then have to discern from the context (where we are, what she is eating, what she has preferred with that in the past, and what is on the table) what she means by ketchup. It's not JUST context and the signifier 'ketchup', though! Involved in my determination of what she is asking for is the assumption that her little mind is determinately desiring a condiment of a particular kind, even though she calls all of them 'ketchup'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64926473127296977672014-02-12T17:51:32.511-08:002014-02-12T17:51:32.511-08:00I would say science does have a structural bias ag...I would say science does have a structural bias against many varieties of theism. In other words a scientist who claims his experiment failed because of an evil spirit, or that it worked because he used a religious ritual or object to bless the lab would not be "doing science" even if he was personally convinced of the truth of that portion of his explanation.Step2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79151727528013992732014-02-12T08:41:38.553-08:002014-02-12T08:41:38.553-08:00djindra,
If you know of something other than phys...djindra,<br /><br /><i>If you know of something other than physical/materialistic objects or properties used by science to corroborate or falsify its theories please let me know. I'd be especially interested in its use of dualistic substances.</i><br /><br />"All of them." As I keep telling you, a property that can be conceived in such a way so as to be compatible with materialism or physicalism does not make the property in question a 'materialist/physicalist property'. You may as well be an idealist telling me "Show me the object of science that isn't ultimately thought". That doesn't make science idealist.<br /><br /><i>However, maybe you think you can avoid this difficulty by proposing the metaphysics of science is that extra something. But you can't undermine science by claiming, metaphysically speaking, it shouldn't work, or even that it's incomplete.</i><br /><br />I'm not attempting to undermine science - you are, by completely misconceiving the limits, scope and foundations of science. The only difficulty I'm having here is with trying to educate you about science itself - you're stuck in a mental trap of 'If I can conceive of it in a way which is compatible with materialism, it's materialist! But if it's compatible with anything else it's not anything else because... well, I dunno. I said it first!'<br /><br />So please, knock it off. Or at least be forthright and say 'If science isn't materialism, then to hell with it. I'm not interested in science for its own sake, only science that can be marshalled for my beliefs!' At least then we can get that whole 'Atheist Ken Ham' connection nicely established and illustrate why you're abusing science in the way you are.Crudehttp://crudeideas.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82263733725769910752014-02-11T13:51:32.859-08:002014-02-11T13:51:32.859-08:00@donjindra:
"If you know of something other ...@donjindra:<br /><br />"If you know of something other than physical/materialistic objects or properties used by science to corroborate or falsify its theories please let me know."<br /><br />How does using physical/materialistic objects or properties to corroborate or falsify theories commit anyone to a materialist point of view?<br /><br />"Okay, I wonder how many chemists begin with the question, What is nature's final cause or teleology, here?"<br /><br />They certainly ask <i>How did effect E come about as a result of causal factors A, B, C, and D?</i> If they (or you) fail to recognize that this is the very same question as <i>How did causal factors A, B, C, and D result in effect E?</i>, that's just a failure on their (or your) part.<br /><br />"Again, this question is asked <i>after</i> the important facts have been gathered. IOW, it's only through materialistic science that you have the data to ask your 'final cause' question in the first place."<br /><br />Even assuming this is true, so what? In what way does the real existence of final causes depend on the way we come to ask questions about them?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4739327231142416952014-02-11T10:52:29.893-08:002014-02-11T10:52:29.893-08:00Crude,
"No scientific theory depends on a ma...Crude,<br /><br />"No scientific theory depends on a materialist POV for corroboration or falsification either - if it did, it would be metaphysics, not science."<br /><br />If you know of something other than physical/materialistic objects or properties used by science to corroborate or falsify its theories please let me know. I'd be especially interested in its use of dualistic substances.<br /><br />However, maybe you think you can avoid this difficulty by proposing the metaphysics of science is that extra something. But you can't undermine science by claiming, metaphysically speaking, it shouldn't work, or even that it's incomplete. To be taken seriously, you'll have to show that the knowledge base itself is flawed. Was it pure luck we invented computers or landed on the moon by ignoring possible supernatural or dualistic properties? You must answer "yes" and explain why luck breaks so much in materialistic science's favor.<br /><br />Mr Green,<br /><br />Okay, I wonder how many chemists begin with the question, What is nature's final cause or teleology, here? Again, this question is asked <i>after</i> the important facts have been gathered. IOW, it's only through materialistic science that you have the data to ask your "final cause" question in the first place.<br /><br />Anonymous,<br /><br />Can I explain why and how in a materialist world science is even possible? It works. That's its goal. That's good enough.<br /><br />donjindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09204496435655660609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73164407911522613332014-02-09T15:26:28.763-08:002014-02-09T15:26:28.763-08:00Can you explain to us why and how in a materialist...<i>Can you explain to us why and how in a materialist world science is even possible?</i><br /><br />I'll give it a shot. Science is possible because of a commitment towards an explanation of observational reality that provides a pragmatic degree of predictability, said commitment emerging from instability factors in the natural world enhanced by a complex communication mode.Step2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21798110799239684082014-02-07T21:17:14.435-08:002014-02-07T21:17:14.435-08:00@Bob
This is my take on Ross's argument for an...@Bob<br />This is my take on Ross's argument for an immaterial aspect of thought. I just wrote this while watching the opening ceremonies and enjoying some wine, so hopefully it's coherent. I don't think it's much different in principle than anything that Scott or dguller have said other than the role (or lack thereof) of intentionality in the argument. Anyway, I said I would try to summarize it for you, so here you go. If you have an academic library nearby I would still try to get ahold of Dr. Feser's paper on Ross's argument.<br /><br />Any physical (material) system can be conceptualized in more than one way. This is true of any physical object, or mechanism no matter what it is or what is supposed to be doing, it can always be conceptualized/judged/thought of in more than just one way. This is true in principle because there is nothing inherent about the physical object, or mechanism that prohibits it from being conceptualized in more than one way. It is also irrelevant if this conceptualization or judgment is deemed accurate. All that matters is the fact that any purely physical system is prone to multiple conceptualizations and is therefore indeterminate with respect to those conceptualizations. I would note that the “aboutness” or intentionality of thought is not the same as what is meant by a concept or judgment. A mental image, or “phantasm” has intentionality because it is about a particular thing, but that is not the same as a concept of a thing. For example, I can have a mental image of a particular circle with specific dimensions, but when I form the concept of ‘circle’, that concept is applicable to all possible circles to infinity. No physical system is repeatable in that way. <br /><br />Thus, to think in the form of a conceptualization such as ‘circle’ is to think of a definite form, and that definite form, itself, cannot be of any other form or it would not be that thought at all. In other words, if conceptualizing was purely physical, then any conceptualization could be conceptualized in more than one way, but then it wouldn’t be a concept!! As already mentioned, it does not matter if the form of the concept is accurate. If I hear the rain on the window with no prior reference to what it actually is, I can still form a judgment of what it is, and that judgment itself is absolutely determinate. Thus, there are at least some thoughts that are determinate among possible conceptual forms, and those thoughts must have an immaterial aspect since all material things are indeterminate with respect to possible conceptual forms.<br />Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10478365664202149335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35943264167413346762014-02-07T14:03:28.825-08:002014-02-07T14:03:28.825-08:00@donjindra
Can you explain to us why and how in a...@donjindra<br /><br />Can you explain to us why and how in a materialist world science is even possible?<br /><br />I know it's the new fad for atheists/materialists to try and hijack the word science in hope to hide their superstitions behind it but as of yet not one have provided us with a reason as to why science could even be possible in principle given atheism/materialism.<br /><br />Either provide a proof or stop appealing to science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18187099481093728412014-02-07T13:40:46.977-08:002014-02-07T13:40:46.977-08:00Don Jindra: I wonder how many chemists begin a que...Don Jindra: <i>I wonder how many chemists begin a quest for a scientific answer with the question, What is nature's purpose, here?</i><br /><br />Where did you get "purpose" from? The word wasn't used in the original post or in the <b>hundreds</b> of comments since (except for a handful of utterly unrelated cases). Apparently you think "purpose" is a synonym for "teleology": and in fact scientific quests start by seeking some natural teleology all the time. However, if you think that "purpose" means "human intentions", then your challenge is ridiculously irrelevant. That you clearly do not understand the philosophical point at issue hardly tells us anything about science.<br /><br /><br /><i>If you want to argue that materialistic science has led to an incoherent body of knowledge</i><br /><br />You've got it backwards: the coherency of science is precisely the evidence <i>against</i> materialism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41135612116051635902014-02-07T11:50:35.741-08:002014-02-07T11:50:35.741-08:00djindra,
No scientific theory depends on a hylomo...djindra,<br /><br /><i>No scientific theory depends on a hylomorphistic POV for corroboration or falsification.</i><br /><br />No scientific theory depends on a materialist POV for corroboration or falsification either - if it did, it would be metaphysics, not science. Science has some basic metaphysical commitments, but they are broad enough to be compatible with a wide variety of metaphysical views. Materialism has tremendous trouble accounting for science in anything but the most superficial way - since science necessarily involves minds, intention, thoughts, etc. Which gets shoved under the rug and ignored.<br /><br />I know, I know - you've been told for so long that materialism = science. Pardon my being the bearer of bad news, but you were suckered. Crudehttp://crudeideas.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com